Bergevin needs to reinfornce the defense a.s.a.p.

Isn't Tinordi the logical successor to the shutdown role? If there's a chance Tinordi can't be counted on in the NHL (as Sandysan speculated in their post), why is Beaulieu a sure thing?

Markov is questionably a number two right now and definitely won't be capable in the next couple of years. He's becoming more and more one-dimensional with age. I'm not saying he's bad, he's a huge part of our team, he just has limitations at this point in his career and he's not trending upwards. Long term solutions for long term problems, we need a guy to fill his spot. Subban can't handle every offensive responsibility on the team, he's only one guy.

Defenceman are responsible for more than just hits and clearing the net. They're also responsible for more than just killing penalties. I'm saying we need a guy who can play both ends of the ice as a #2 defenceman, not just offensive/defensive role players. I'd rather him be decent at both ends of the ice than good at one and inept at the other.

I never said tinordi was not going to make it in the nhl, I hve every confindence that he will provided we dont rush him and throw him to the wolves because he's the only arrow we have.

I dont know if Bealieu will ever be as good as markov, and i'd like to let him " cure" for a while in the AHL so that when we bring him up we dont have to worry about sending him back down. Markov is not going anywhere soon so we have time. If we had the same type of guy who could play tinordi's role of being big mean and imposing we wouldnt have to risk sending the kid out there with nothing more than a hope he gets better.

I want the luxury of deciding where these kids play, beaulieu will play in the A this year because we have markov, but we have no such luxury with tinordi. If we rush him and he gets komisa-wrecked and people start saying " he was never good anyways" I'm gonna flip.

When you say overpay in FA, you do you realize that combined Bouillon and Briere make more money than Horton or Clarksson make. Those two are still overpayed but at least they would've made us a better team. Instead we spent the same amount of money and didn't even improve.

So on defence we are going to have 2-3 rookies next year, and that's supposed to make our D better? Expecting all 3 of Beaulieu/Tinordi/Pateryn to not only reach their potential but to do it at an insanely fast rate is dumb.

This post is wrong on two levels.

1-you can't just add up players and say if you don't have player X player Y and player Z you can give Clarkson 5.25/year. It simply doesn't work that way, even if you don't have a guy like Bouillon you still end up paying somebody else 1-1.5 mil to be a #5-6-7 d-man, even if it's an AHL rookie. Teams won't just dress 5 d-men and play with 19 to sign "a Clarkson"(or insert that year's UFA).

2-you can't compare players signed to 1-2 year deals, which have little to no risk to the team. If Bouillon completely falls on his head, well his cap hit is ZERO after July 1st, Briere the same on July 1st 2015. Not only is Clarkson a huge cap hit for 3rd line calibre production(170 points in 426 games), but it's for SEVEN YEARS!!! That's a contract right up there with Gomez Drury and Redden and worse than the Komisarek one!

In terms of the defense, I see 2 or 3 of Beaulieu Pateryn and Tinordi part of the team next year. Not sure if they'll make the defense better, but if Markov and Emelin are re-signed, they won't have to. They'll just need to gain experience and keep progressing into bigger minutes.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. you see this simply as they should not have taken Brière, they should have gotten bigger. I say he wasn't the first option and that either way anybody they wanted was a stopgap measure for the next 2 years at most.

You say they are ready for a push with only 1 or 2 specifics players. I say they are not and would only be hurting what they have planned if they do big trade or big signings right now.

I might be wrong, they may be better than I think but I feel this organization is thinking more long term than you are and feel this team is not ready to be elite. Difference of opinion aside while you don't agree with them, you have to admit they do have a plan and are sticking to it.

I'd find this easier to agree with if we hadn't just signed Briere. That's my main issue with what we did. We had the capability to make at least one move of significance and we get smaller up front...

Honestly I think our d is bottom 5 in the league. Huge drop off after PK and Markov. Huge, huge drop off.

We are in the bottom 5 d-corps in the league, even though we won the division last year and our goalie went into a tailspin in the late part of the season.

Really?

I disagree.

Last year, we may not have had a great "defensive" defence, but we had a powerful offensive defence. Our transition game gave most teams serious issues last year, and that's a huge part of why we won the division. It certainly wasn't Carey's performance, and it certainly wasn't our "shut-down" defencemen getting the job done. We were 4th in the league in goals for last year and we only had one player in the top 40 scoring forwards last season (Patches). Our puck-moving skill on the back end was our strength.

In my opinion our weakness last year was a lack of balance on the back end. We had good offensive d-men, but the lack of size and defensive prowess was exposed later in the season and in the playoffs, especially with Emelin going down and Gorges having an off-season.

Right now, we still have PK and Markov (though he may be less effective this year), so we have our weapons. The questions to me are more about our defensive d-men to balance our line-up...

- Can Gorges return to form as a reliable, steady top-4 defensive d-man?
- Can Murray play bottom pairing minutes reliably so he can bring his size and toughness to balance out our defence?
- Can the big kid Tinordi crack the d-corps lineup?
- When Emelin returns, will he be able to reliably play top-4 minutes?

When you say overpay in FA, you do you realize that combined Bouillon and Briere make more money than Horton or Clarksson make. Those two are still overpayed but at least they would've made us a better team. Instead we spent the same amount of money and didn't even improve.

So on defence we are going to have 2-3 rookies next year, and that's supposed to make our D better? Expecting all 3 of Beaulieu/Tinordi/Pateryn to not only reach their potential but to do it at an insanely fast rate is dumb.

Putting word into my mouth isn't an argument. never said they would reach their full potential next year but do you think next year Bouillon, Murray, Diaz would be better than Tinordi, Pateryn, Beaulieu (actually I don't think Beaulieu will be ready next year)

As for forwards you conveniently forget the terms. Cherry picking info to push you're argument makes me take your post with a grain of salt.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. you see this simply as they should not have taken Brière, they should have gotten bigger. I say he wasn't the first option and that either way anybody they wanted was a stopgap measure for the next 2 years at most.

You say they are ready for a push with only 1 or 2 specifics players. I say they are not and would only be hurting what they have planned if they do big trade or big signings right now.

I might be wrong, they may be better than I think but I feel this organization is thinking more long term than you are and feel this team is not ready to be elite. Difference of opinion aside while you don't agree with them, you have to admit they do have a plan and are sticking to it.

Everyone GM has a plan, some don't have good plans, some simply can't execute properly. If they look at this team and see a team that is far from being a contender then I question their ability to evaluate properly.

I don't think last year was a fluke or a mirage. We were a good enough puck-possession team to mitigate our flaws on defence for most of the season but it caught up to us at the end of the season and in the playoffs.

Markov wore down a bit with #1 minutes. Early on with Subban out Markov played about 24-25 minutes a game and against tough competition. I think as a #2-3(depending how Beaulieu/Tinordi develop) he can play 22-23 minutes and excell.

Don't overlook the addition of Murray who will play a ton on PK so that will cut minutes from Markov and Diaz in that aspect, allowing them more time/energy in offensive roles.

Beaulieu on physical tools alone can be averagbe defensively. He has high end mobility, good size and above average hocjey sense. Unless he doesn't care about playing in his own end he should be at least NHL average. Those 3 tools go a long way towards being a good defender, the other 25-30% is desire. As much as Beaulieu can be immature, the compete level is usually there.

I think we can agree that, by the end of the year, Markov was well below his normal level of play. He was still a capable defenceman but he wasn't capable of what he has been over the years. I don't think he should be put in that situation again. If he's to be resigned, he needs to be put into a situation where he'll succeed and last the year/contract. To me, this means cutting down minutes and defensive responsibilities, averaging just under 20mins/game while helping out our PP.

I also think Beaulieu has the potential, he's just a long ways off from getting there and being capable of playing big minutes with big responsibilities.

We need another player, of which we have none, to play in the top-4 as I definitely don't want to see our bottom-pairing defenceman gain more responsibility (based on what they've shown). I think Sbsisa, Despres, and MacDonald all would fill this role without keeping Tinordi/Beaulieu from developing. If we can't get a #2 defenceman, let's get three #3s.

When you say overpay in FA, you do you realize that combined Bouillon and Briere make more money than Horton or Clarksson make. Those two are still overpayed but at least they would've made us a better team. Instead we spent the same amount of money and didn't even improve.

So on defence we are going to have 2-3 rookies next year, and that's supposed to make our D better? Expecting all 3 of Beaulieu/Tinordi/Pateryn to not only reach their potential but to do it at an insanely fast rate is dumb.

Tinordi seems to be doing so, so that's 1, Patteryn is giving us signs he's ready for at least part time duties on the bottom pair, that's 2, and we're not next year yet.

Now if you think those two guys cant replace Bouillon/Murray, that's another story.

Beaulieu and Pateryn also have good size. Didier also. Dietz Thrower Nygren and Ellis are not exactly smurfs either. Size on defense should be a non issue going forward, assuming Emelin is re-signed.

We can do a lot better than Ottawa if we want to have a great defense. Karlsson is a d-man in name only. The rest is big and slow, hard to win with because a good team will forecheck them into the ground.

Drafting PBA is never a bad idea, if you have the best players you can always trade/sign UFA's for need.

Re-read my post again. I said that the last ten years of drafting has left us in this position THIS YEAR and probably will not see improvement for a couple of years when the players you mention may possibly be ready.

Everyone GM has a plan, some don't have good plans, some simply can't execute properly. If they look at this team and see a team that is far from being a contender then I question their ability to evaluate properly.

I don't think last year was a fluke or a mirage. We were a good enough puck-possession team to mitigate our flaws on defence for most of the season but it caught up to us at the end of the season and in the playoffs.

You say we aren't close to being a contender, so what are we missing?

And that is where we differ. I think we are like the Capitals a few year back. A good season team but we're far from a perennial playoff contender. We are far from Boston, Chicago, L.A.

Let's have this discussion again in 3 years. I might hate Bergevin by then or you might actually praise him

Greg Pateryn is almost as NHL ready as Tinordi. Thrower, Ellis and Dietz are all physical players. Do you pay attention to the website attached to the forum you post on? There's some valuable information on Canadiens prospects there!

We did not draft Pateryn.

Read my post above regarding Thrower, Ellis and Dietz and then maybe you will understand what I am saying. Thanks.

Tinordi seems to be doing so, so that's 1, Patteryn is giving us signs he's ready for at least part time duties on the bottom pair, that's 2, and we're not next year yet.

Now if you think those two guys cant replace Bouillon/Murray, that's another story.

of those three the only one who has shown even a glimpse of being ready is Tinordi. Unless Markov's knees get wonky again Beaulieu should het his cup of coffee couple of games but that's it and if pateryn sees significant time ( and I have nothing against him personally) we are screwed.

But I guess bringing up pateryn and throwing him to the wolves is better than another poster who suggested that whiskey was going to clear the crease.

Tinordi seems to be doing so, so that's 1, Patteryn is giving us signs he's ready for at least part time duties on the bottom pair, that's 2, and we're not next year yet.

Now if you think those two guys cant replace Bouillon/Murray, that's another story.

This year no, next year yes. From what I hear from training camp Tinordi and Pateryn are the 2 prospects who are ready for the NHL. I would still wait for next year but you get my drift. Barring injuries they'll replace Bouillon and Murray next year maybe sooner.

This year no, next year yes. From what I hear from training camp Tinordi and Pateryn are the 2 prospects who are ready for the NHL. I would still wait for next year but you get my drift. Barring injuries they'll replace Bouillon and Murray next year maybe sooner.

that's what the guy I quoted was refering to, next year

a full year of experience for Tinordi + games for Pateryn they year and they should be fine next season, at worst they'll replace Bouillon/Murray on bottom pair.

This year no, next year yes. From what I hear from training camp Tinordi and Pateryn are the 2 prospects who are ready for the NHL. I would still wait for next year but you get my drift. Barring injuries they'll replace Bouillon and Murray next year maybe sooner.

Unless something miraculous happens it looks like tinordi is going to play with the habs this year ( I've kind of accepted this but I still dont like it). The kid is as young as he is big and if we jerk this kid around sending him up and down and it kills his confidence the we deserve another mcdonaugh-esque drought with nothing but a decade of soft pmd defensemen + subban.

Unless something miraculous happens it looks like tinordi is going to play with the habs this year ( I've kind of accepted this but I still dont like it). The kid is as young as he is big and if we jerk this kid around sending him up and down and it kills his confidence the we deserve another mcdonaugh-esque drought with nothing but a decade of soft pmd defensemen + subban.

Unless something miraculous happens it looks like tinordi is going to play with the habs this year ( I've kind of accepted this but I still dont like it). The kid is as young as he is big and if we jerk this kid around sending him up and down and it kills his confidence the we deserve another mcdonaugh-esque drought with nothing but a decade of soft pmd defensemen + subban.

In the immortal words of saint Price "chill out" It's not even sure he will be with the team yet and I believe this administration has proven they know what to do with young talent. You have no basis for worry. If it was the previous admin on the other hand...

1-you can't just add up players and say if you don't have player X player Y and player Z you can give Clarkson 5.25/year. It simply doesn't work that way, even if you don't have a guy like Bouillon you still end up paying somebody else 1-1.5 mil to be a #5-6-7 d-man, even if it's an AHL rookie. Teams won't just dress 5 d-men and play with 19 to sign "a Clarkson"(or insert that year's UFA).

2-you can't compare players signed to 1-2 year deals, which have little to no risk to the team. If Bouillon completely falls on his head, well his cap hit is ZERO after July 1st, Briere the same on July 1st 2015. Not only is Clarkson a huge cap hit for 3rd line calibre production(170 points in 426 games), but it's for SEVEN YEARS!!! That's a contract right up there with Gomez Drury and Redden and worse than the Komisarek one!

In terms of the defense, I see 2 or 3 of Beaulieu Pateryn and Tinordi part of the team next year. Not sure if they'll make the defense better, but if Markov and Emelin are re-signed, they won't have to. They'll just need to gain experience and keep progressing into bigger minutes.

1) Well we have 8 NHL defenceman on 1-way deals on the roster. Dropping one and not replacing him isn't a big deal when it's a number 6/7 guy. Especially when we have 3 prospects that seem to ready. You don't need to spend 1.5m on a number 6/7 guy. You can find those at under a million easy enough.

2) There is obviously more risk in signing a long term deal but there's also more reward, since the player is better. If Clarksson's last 2 years are repeatable then we are probably a contender. If Briere & Bouillon work out then we are still a long shot.

3) That's the whole point another year goes by, and we aren't any better. But now Markov is a year older, we probably lose one of Diaz/Emelin. It takes 3-4 years in the NHL for defenceman to reach their potential. Which means by that time we'll have also lost pretty much our entire top-6 from last year except Pacioretty. Whenever we have to wait for a prospect to fill a need, by the time they can, other needs will materialize. So all we end up doing is treading water. Since we aren't a contender yet we need to do more than tread water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathronas

Putting word into my mouth isn't an argument. never said they would reach their full potential next year but do you think next year Bouillon, Murray, Diaz would be better than Tinordi, Pateryn, Beaulieu (actually I don't think Beaulieu will be ready next year)

As for forwards you conveniently forget the terms. Cherry picking info to push you're argument makes me take your post with a grain of salt.

I have to see how much Bouillon/Murray have declined, but yes they would probably be better than 3 rookies. Because with that many rookies in the lineup they'll get overmatched too often, lose confidence.

The term doesn't matter much if they produce for at least the first few years. If they have 3 good/average years, then struggle the next year if we want to trade them it's only 3 years left at 5m. There's always a team willing to take a chance that a struggling player just needs a change of scenery if his past was good. And 3 years at 5m per is not much of a risk.